DemocracyThe God That Failed (56 page)

In every society, people who covet another man's property exist, but in most cases people learn not to act on this desire or even feel ashamed for entertaining it.
¹³
In an anarcho-capitalist society in particular, anyone acting on such a desire is considered a criminal and is suppressed by physical violence. Under monarchical rule, by contrast, only one person—the king—can act on his desire for another man's property, and it is this that makes him a potential threat. However, because only he can expropriate while everyone else is forbidden to do likewise, a king's every action will be regarded with utmost suspicion." Moreover, the selection of a king is by accident of his noble birth. His only characteristic qualification is his upbringing as a future king and preserver of the dynasty and its possessions. This does not assure that he will not be evil, of course. However, at the same time it does not preclude that a king might actually be a harmless dilettante or even a decent person.

In distinct contrast, by freeing up entry into government, the Constitution permitted anyone to openly express his desire for other men's property; indeed, owing to the constitutional guarantee of "freedom of speech," everyone is protected in so doing. Moreover, everyone is permitted to act on this desire, provided that he gains entry into government; hence, under the Constitution everyone becomes a potential threat.

To be sure, there are people who are unaffected by the desire to enrich themselves at the expense of others and to lord it over them; that is, there are people who wish
only to work, produce, and enjoy the fruits of their labor. However, if politics—the acquisition of goods by political means (taxation and legislation)—is perm
itted, even these harmless people will be profoundly affected. In order to defend themselves against attacks on their liberty and property by those who have fewer moral
scruples, even
these honest, hardworking people must become "political animals" and spend more and more time and energy developing their political skills. Given that the characteristics and talents required for political success—of good looks, sociability, oratorical power, charisma, etc.—are distributed unequally among men, then those
with
these particular characteristics and skills will have a sound advantage in the competition for scarce resources (economic success) as compared to those
without
them.

¹²
See on the following Hans-Hermann Hoppe,
Eigentum,
Anarchie
und
Staat.
Stu
dien
zur
Theoriedes
Kapitalismus
(Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, 1987), pp. 182ff.

¹³
See Helmut Schoeck,
Envy:
A
Theory
of
Social
Behavior
(New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1970).

¹⁴
See de Jouvenel,
On
Power,
pp. 9-10.

Worse still, given that in every society more "have-nots" of everything worth having exist than "haves," the politically talented who have little or no inhibition against taking property and lording it over others will have a clear advantage over those with such scruples. That is, open political competition favors aggressive (hence dangerous) rather than defensive (hence harmless) political talents and will thus lead to the cultivation and perfection of the peculiar skills of demagoguery, deception, lying, opportunism, corruption, and bribery. Therefore, entrance into and success within government will become increasingly impossible for anyone hampered by moral scruples against lying and stealing. Unlike kings then, congressmen, presidents, and Supreme Court judges do not and cannot acquire their positions accidentally. Rather, they reach their position because of their proficiency as morally uninhibited demagogues. Moreover, even outside the orbit of government, within civil society, individuals will increasingly rise to the top of economic and financial success
not
on account of their productive or entrepreneurial talents or even their superior defensive political talents, but rather because of their superior skills as unscrupulous political entrepreneurs and lobbyists. Thus, the Constitution virtually assures that exclusively dangerous men will rise to the pinnacle of government power and that moral behavior and ethical standards will tend to decline and deteriorate all-around.

Moreover, the constitutionally provided "separation of powers" makes no difference in this regard. Two or even three wrongs do not make a right. To the contrary, they lead to the proliferation, accumulation, reinforcement, and aggravation of error. Legislators cannot impose their will on their hapless subjects without the cooperation of the president as the head of the executive branch of government, and the president in turn will use his position and the resources at his disposal to influence legislators and legislation. And although the Supreme Court may disagree with particular acts of Congress or the president, Supreme Court judges are nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate and remain dependent on them for funding. As an integral part of the
institution of government, they have no interest in limiting but every interest in expanding the government's, and hence their own, power.
¹⁵

¹⁵
See on this the brilliant and indeed prophetic analysis by John C. Calhoun,
A
Disquisition
on
Government
(New York: Liberal Arts Press, 1953), esp. pp. 25-27. There Calhoun notes that a

written constitution certainly has many advantages, but it is a great mistake to suppose that the mere insertion of provisions to restrict and limit the powers of the government, without investing those for whose protection they are inserted with the means of enforcing their observance, will be sufficient to prevent the major and dominant party from abusing its powers. Being the party in possession of the government, they will... be in favor of the powers granted by the constitution and opposed to the restrictions intended to limit them. As the major and dominant parties, they will have no need of these restrictions for their protection.... The minor or weaker party, on the other contrary, would take the opposite direction and regard them as essential to their protection against the dominant party.. . . But where there are no means by which they could compel the major party to observe these restrictions, the only resort left them would be a strict construction of the constitution. ... To which the major party would oppose a liberal construction—one which which would give to the words of the grant the broadest meaning of which they were susceptible. It would then be construction against construction—the one to contract and the other to enlarge the powers of the government to the utmost. But of what possible avail could the strict construction of the minor party be, against the liberal interpretation of the major, when the one would have all the powers of the government to carry its construction into effect and the other be deprived of all means of enforcing its construction? In a contest so unequal, the result would not be doubtful. The party in favor of restrictions would be overpowered.... The end of the contest would be the subversion of the constitution.... the restrictions would ultimately be annulled and the government be converted into one of unlimited powers Nor would the division of government into separate and, as it regards each other, independent departments prevent this result.... as each and all the departments—and, of course, the entire government—would be under the control of the numerical majority, it is too clear to require explanation that a mere distribution of its powers among its agents or representatives could do little or nothing to counteract its tendency to oppression and abuse of power.

In sum, then, Rothbard has commented on this analysis,

the Constitution has proved to be an instrument for ratifying the expansion of State power rather than the opposite. As Calhoun saw, any written limits that leave it to government to interpret its own powers are bound to be interpreted as sanctions for expanding and not binding those powers. In a profound sense, the idea of binding down power with the chains of a written constitution has proved to be a noble experiment
that failed. The idea of a strictly limited government has proved to be utopian; some other, more radical means must be found to prevent the growth of the aggressive State.
(ForANew
Liberty,
p. 67)

IV

After more than two centuries of "constitutionally limited government," the results are clear and incontrovertible. At the outset of the American "experiment," the tax burden imposed on Americans was light, indeed almost negligible. Money consisted of fixed quantities of gold and silver. The definition of private property was clear and seemingly immutable, and the right to self-defense was regarded as sacrosanct. No standing army existed, and, as expressed in Washington's
Farewell
Address,
a firm commitment to free trade and a noninterventionist foreign policy appeared to be in place. Two hundred years later, matters have changed dramatically.
¹⁶
Now, year in and year out the American government expropriates more than 40 percent of the incomes of private producers, making even the economic burden imposed on slaves and serfs seem moderate in comparison. Gold and silver have been replaced by government-manufactured paper money, and Americans are being robbed continually through money inflation. The meaning of private property, once seemingly clear and fixed, has become
obscure, flexible, and fluid. In fact, every detail of private life, property, trade, and contract is regulated and reregulated by ever higher mountains of paper laws (legislation), and with increasing legislation, ever more legal uncertainty and moral hazards have been created, and lawlessness has replaced law and order. Last but not least, the commitment to free trade and noninterventionism has given way to a policy of protectionism, militarism, and imperialism. In fact, almost since its beginnings the U.S. government has engaged in relentless aggressive expansionism and, starting with the Spanish-American War and continuing past World War I and World War II to the present, the U.S. has become entangled in hundreds of foreign conflicts and risen to the rank of the world's foremost warmonger and imperialist power. In addition, while American citizens have become increasingly more defenseless, insecure, and impoverished, and foreigners all over the globe have become ever more threatened and bullied by U.S. military power, American presidents, members of Congress, and Supreme Court judges have become ever more arrogant, morally corrupt, and dangerous.
¹⁷

See also Anthony de Jasay,
Against
Politics:
On
Government,
Anarchy,
and
Order
(London: Routledge, 1997), esp. chap. 2.

¹⁶
Robert Higgs,
Crisis
and
Leviathan:
Critical
Episodes
in
the
Growth
of
American
Government
(New York: Oxford University Press 1987), p. ix, contrasts the early American experience to the present:

There was a time, long ago, when the average American could go about his daily business hardly aware of the government—especially the federal government. As a farmer, merchant, or manufacturer, he could decide what, how, when, and where to produce and sell his goods, constrained by little more than market forces. Just think: no farm subsidies, price supports, or acreage controls; no Federal Trade Commission; no antitrust laws; no Interstate Commerce Commission. As an employer, employee, consumer, investor, lender, borrower, student, or teacher, he could proceed largely according to his own lights. Just think: no National Labor Relations Board; no federal consumer "protection" laws; no Security and Exchange Commission; no Equal Employment Opportunity Commission; no Department of Health and Human Services. Lacking a central bank to issue national paper currency, people commonly used gold coins to make purchases. There were no general sales taxes, no Social Security taxes, no income taxes. Though governmental officials were as corrupt then as now—maybe more so—they had vastly less to be corrupt with. Private citizens spent about fifteen times more than all governments combined.—Those days, alas, are long gone.

What can possibly be done about this state of affairs? First, the American Constitution must be recognized for what it is—an error. As the Declaration of Independence noted, government is supposed to protect life, property, and the pursuit of happiness. Yet in granting government the power to tax and legislate without consent, the Constitution cannot possibly assure this goal but is instead the very instrument for invading and destroying the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is absurd to believe that an agency which may tax without consent can be a property protector. Likewise, it is absurd to believe that an agency with legislative powers can preserve law and order. Rather, it must be recognized that the Constitution is itself unconstitutional, i.e., incompatible with the very doctrine of natural human rights that inspired the American Revolution.
¹⁸
Indeed, no one in his right mind would agree to a contract that allowed one's alleged protector to determine unilaterally
—without one's consent—and irrevocably—without the possibility of exit—how much to charge for protection; and no one in his right mind would agree to an irrevocable contract which granted one's alleged protector the right to ultimate decisionmaking regarding one's own person and property, i.e., of unilateral
lawmaking.
¹⁹

¹⁷
On the growth of U.S. government, and in particular the role of war in this development, see
The
Costs
of
War:
America's
Pyrrhic
Victories,
John V. Denson, ed. (New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers, 1997); Higgs, Crisis
and
Leviathan;
Ekkehart Krippendorff,
Stoat
und
Krieg
(Frankfurt/M.: Suhrkamp, 1985), esp. pp. 90-116;
A
New
History
of
Leviathan,
Ronald Radosh and Murray N. Rothbard, eds. (New York: Dutton, 1972); Arthur A. Ekirch,
The
Decline
of
American
Liberalism
(New York: Atheneum, 1967).

¹⁸
For the most forceful statement to this effect see Lysander Spooner,
No
Treason:
The
Constitution
of
No
Authority
(Colorado Springs, Colo.: Ralph Myles, 1973); also Murray N. Rothbard,
The
Ethics
of
Liberty
(New York: New York University Press, 1998), esp. chaps. 22 and 23.